Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby cephalotus » Sun 18 Nov 2018, 13:42:25

KaiserJeep wrote:I don't want to mimimize the task ahead of us. We need to scrap, recycle, and rebuild the infrastructure we have, to make it energy efficient...


Efficiency is motsly a matter of energy prices. Today energy prices are ultra low (depsite people thinking they are to high). At such low prices there is no need for efficient use of energy.

Improving the efficienc by great margings is quite easy in many cases.

Use a modern LED instead of an incandescent light bulb improves efficiency by factor 5-10.
Replacing your standard gasoline car that consumes 80kWh/100km with an electric equivalent reduces consumption to 20kWh/100km. Use an electric bicycle instead and you are at 1kWh/100km. I commute to work with an electric bicycle and I do it every day, no matter the weather.
You could heat every room in your home to 23°C during winter and end up consuming 20.000kWh/a for that. You could heat your rooms to 20°C and end up using only 12.000-15.000kWh/a and if you heat only one room to 20°C and the rest to 15°C which two generations ago would have been perfectly fine you end up consuming maybe 5000-6000kWh/a.
The investment for that would be zero, it could be done overnight. But with cheap energy people prefer to pay 10 Euro per day to heat every room into their home that they can run around in a T-shirt even at -15°C.

I beleive that reducing energy consimption by factor 2 could be done overnight with zero investments and reduction by factor 3-4 could be done very quickly with small investments.

But this will only happen when energy will be expensive and people will protest in the millions if that happens. 15°C in your bathroom is not acceptable for most people. Driving a bicycle in rain is unthinkable.

Most people will do everything to keep the lifestyle of wasting cheap energy as long as possible and they are rather willing to destroy the ecosystems of the planet before turning down the thermostat and putting on a pullover an thick socks during winter.

They believe that it is their human right to waste impossible amounts of energy. The average person tody consumes much more energy than a king would have done 300 years ago. (counting slaves/employees, horses, firewood and so on...)
cephalotus
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Tue 18 Sep 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Germany

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sun 18 Nov 2018, 14:05:23

Look, I have no problem with people "wasting" energy that they can afford to buy. My theory is that after we begin to run out of plentiful fossil fuels, energy will be 4X or 10X as expensive - at that time, the infrastructure designed for cheap energy is obsolete and near useless.

I am adapting my existing residence to a "Net Zero Energy" home, and I will probably build another which will have surplus energy production to charge an electric car. I will do this today when energy is cheap, versus tomorrow when it is expensive. This is a forward-looking strategy.

But my main point in posting in this particular thread is that even here at peakoil.com, people continue to act as if fossil fuels will always be cheap and plentiful. They buy cheaply constructed homes and vehicles with internal combustion engines. There is no future in these, they will lose their investments.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5696
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 19 Nov 2018, 05:34:23

KaiserJeep wrote:I don't want to mimimize the task ahead of us. We need to scrap, recycle, and rebuild the infrastructure we have, to make it energy efficient. In fact, the word "infrastructure" does not even communicate the extent of the changes required. What I am talking about is superinsulated homes, industrial, commercial, and government buildings. We need to abandon the use of electric lights unless they are being used. So no street lighting, no security lights, no illuminated parking lights, etc. We need energy efficient transportation in all forms. We need to produce food without mechanized agriculture, probably without soil, in solar greenhouses with hydroponics. Etc. etc. etc.

This is what I was talking about when I said that we could run the USA on one sixth of the energy we currently consume. I was serious, but we need literally decades to bring about the infrastructure renewal required. It would hurt a lot less if we did so before energy got very very expensive. But we have not started. But by the time that we have completed the renewal I am talking about, the relatively feeble renewable energy sources will suffice.

I can't worry about the rest of you, you'll have to save yourselves. I'm not gonna do it, nor will anybody else. I'm planning a net zero energy residence, actually a couple of those, and staying out of debt. Fortunately, I have the means to do this. So do many of you. Or you could just do nothing now and then die later. A lot of people are going to be doing that.


To me the worst example are poorly insulated houses where the contractors have influenced local buildng codes to only meet minimum standards. We know without doubt that adding 15% to construction cost in the form of thick insulation and thicker interior drywall cuts a homes energy demand more than 50% every day of every year. Yet we continue to build pootly insulated drafty houses because contractor inspired building codes allow this to happen. If you own a house the energy use is crazy for most people because they choose to act as if winter heating is free. This is especially true of many elderly people who eat a low protein diet which causes them to get chills easily, especially when on medication to lower blood pressure and thin the blood.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15177
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby GHung » Mon 19 Nov 2018, 10:50:47

I doubt that the upgrades you mention add 15% to the building costs. The cost of me building my exterior walls as "super 6" offset framed wasn't too much (added maybe 5% to the overall costs if that much), and blowing in additional ceiling insulation is dirt cheap compared to the energy savings. Most houses have bat insulation in the ceiling, and blowing in an additional 12"-16" of glass or cellulose on top of that really makes a huge difference. It reduces/eliminates thermal bridging from the rafters and can eliminate unseen leaks and air circulation through the insulation. Really cheap, either for new construction or after the build. If you buy the blow-in insulation from HD or Lowes, the machine rental is free. Takes two people; a nasty job but easy and fast for most homes. I pumped my ceilings full of the stuff, about 24 inches which settled to about 20-22 inches; greater than R-60. During good passive solar periods, the house essentially heats itself.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2660
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 19 Nov 2018, 11:25:56

Our house was built around 1887, the walls are a double layer of bricks, no insulation, no studs. Now it’s a row house so the houses have limited external walls, but it’s still an energy hog. And the forced hot air heat is distributed through old chimney flues.

To bring the house to any kind of moderate energy standards would require it to be gutted and a new interior installed.

Lots of apartment buildings have similar issues.

I doubt we have sufficient carbon budget to replace virtually all obsolete housing stocks.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 11496
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Mon 19 Nov 2018, 12:55:07

So Newfie, the question is do you prefer to own that obsolete building until the rising cost of energy makes it worthless? It sounds from your description as if it will be an early casualty of the energy crisis to come.

I KNOW these are painful decisions, and that at this time in your life, it may not be convenient to invest in new construction or energy retrofits. Simply ask yourself if you postpone these changes, whether you can afford the loss. All it takes is one single Winter with insufficient or costly propane, natural gas, electricity, and heating oil to render those structures worthless. There will be a panic and a "conniption" in the housing markets, and abruptly the cost of heating fuels will quadruple, and along with that, similar escalation in the cost of energy retrofits.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5696
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Mon 19 Nov 2018, 14:02:04

Newfie wrote:To bring the house to any kind of moderate energy standards would require it to be gutted and a new interior installed.

Lots of apartment buildings have similar issues.

Ah, that perhaps explains why I've had friends and family claim their heating bills were so horrendous in their apartments. I had presumed just old, inefficient forced air systems, and wondered why local government (over time) didn't FORCE them to convert to modern efficient systems, via regulation. But if it would cost a complete rehab, then owners are strongly incented to wait (and let the tenant pay the bills, until they figure out the game, and move.)
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 6085
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby cephalotus » Mon 19 Nov 2018, 14:33:39

KaiserJeep wrote:Look, I have no problem with people "wasting" energy that they can afford to buy. My theory is that after we begin to run out of plentiful fossil fuels, energy will be 4X or 10X as expensive - at that time, the infrastructure designed for cheap energy is obsolete and near useless.


I stopped to worry about running out of cheap fossil fuels several years ago.

Our much more significant problem is running out of atmosphere, i.e. to much CO2....

Image

Most of our cheap fossil fuels need to stay unused forever and I fail to see that happen without massive political pressure.

That's why I'm advocating cheap solar and wind as the better option to coal and oil and while I'm advocating a (worldwide) CO2 tax on fossil fuels.

Oil or electricity will not become 4 times as expensive as today (adjusted for inflation), because at that prices electricity from solar+wind+system integration is already much cheaper and synthetic fuels made from electricity from wind and solar is competitive.

Even at 4 times the actual price in my region (translating to 5€/l Diesel oder 1,40€/kWh for domestical use) will not be the end of modern civilisation. Even at 5€ per Liter Diesel trucks will transport tomatoes from Spain to Germany. They will do it because even than energy is very cheap, just do the maths.
Electricity from new solar and wind powerplants cost around 4-7€ct/kWh in Germany. Add all the extra cost for the grid, storage and so on you will end up not higher than maybe 40-50€ct/kWh and that would bei for 100% solar+wind. Add a small amount of natural gas to the mix and it will be significantly cheaper.
You just have to decide how to split the average cost between industry and consumer.

But my main point in posting in this particular thread is that even here at peakoil.com, people continue to act as if fossil fuels will always be cheap and plentiful. They buy cheaply constructed homes and vehicles with internal combustion engines. There is no future in these, they will lose their investments.


You have the doomers that believe (and hope?) that collapse is unavoidable, because oil somehow is a magic stuff that can not be replaced and so we will all end up in some medieval world. There are also the nuclear power addicts who fail to recognize that nuclear power is most likely already losing the game and keep blaming wind and solar as expensive and not sustainable.
And of corse there are the deniers of manmade global warming who believe that it is the birthright of their fucking generation to burn everything they can get their hands on.
cephalotus
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Tue 18 Sep 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Germany

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Mon 19 Nov 2018, 15:39:40

Don't lecture me about "cheap" solar energy, I have had a solar roof since 2010. We can crunch numbers if you wish, but I'm an EE and I took advantage of the CSI (California Solar Initiative) and state-mandated "net metering" laws and I am basicly using OPM (other people's money) to pay for my savings.

For the record, in sunny central California, my 2.8 kVA system produces at an average of 19% of rated capacity. To run my house on PV alone, I would need to oversize the system and add storage batteries for about 5 days of sunless, near zero solar PV output weather. That is an electrical production cost that is 12X to 15X buying fossil fuel electricity off the grid.

I'm a fan of solar energy, wind energy, and also a proponent of Passive House technology. But I refuse to cheat the numbers or make unjustified claims. We can't run the country we have off renewable energy sources. We have to reinvent the country, renew the entire infrastructure, before renewables are viable as the only energy sources.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5696
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby cephalotus » Mon 19 Nov 2018, 16:25:09

KaiserJeep wrote:Don't lecture me about "cheap" solar energy, I have had a solar roof since 2010. We can crunch numbers if you wish, but I'm an EE and I took advantage of the CSI (California Solar Initiative) and state-mandated "net metering" laws and I am basicly using OPM (other people's money) to pay for my savings.

For the record, in sunny central California, my 2.8 kVA system produces at an average of 19% of rated capacity.


I bought my first larger solar panel (50Wp) in 1995, when I was still a teenager, we have a PV system with 5kWp installed on my parents home since 2005.

I'm an engineer, too, and I earn my money as a consultant on future energy systems which includes consulting politics. I have detailed recorded data available for hundreds of PV + storage systems installed in "my region" because I designed the technical aspects of the promotion program for them and I ordered a technical review of more than a hundred of 20 year old PV systems. Every(?) large battery system asking for subsidies in "my region" is hitting my desc.

So what do you want to talk about? :-)

Btw: 2018 tenders for PV and wind onshore powerplants in Germany in €ct/kWh:

Solar 4,33 - 4,59 - 4,69
Onshore 4,73 - 5,73 - 6,16 - 6,26

https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Sac ... 9625FA0318

Of course you could make an ultra expensive PV island system on your home, but why should you? This is stupid doomer / prepper porn, but not a wise thing to do to build sustainable energy systems. Your home is already connected to the electric grid. Use it.

PS: btw, net metering is one of the most stupid and non sustainable subside systems.
cephalotus
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Tue 18 Sep 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Germany

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Mon 19 Nov 2018, 18:04:09

My whole point was that our present lifestyle with high energy demands is only possible because of cheap fossil fuel energy. Many people here at peakoil.com are bemoaning the case that renewable energy sources are insufficient to support our present lifestyles. Also, due to slowly increasing population with legal and illegal immigration, the demand for energy is ever-increasing as time passes.

Even our members - who should all know better - are still buying cars that require fossil fuels and homes that require fossil fuels or cheap electricity for HVAC. Nor is wood fuel any kind of solution. Today it is possible to build homes that require zero net enegy inputs, regardless of climate. That should be everybody's objective. N

Nor should anyone buy another vehicle with a fuel tank for gasoline or diesel.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5696
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 19 Nov 2018, 18:44:35

KaiserJeep wrote:So Newfie, the question is do you prefer to own that obsolete building until the rising cost of energy makes it worthless? It sounds from your description as if it will be an early casualty of the energy crisis to come.


Quite the contrary, I expect to BENEFIT from the energy crisis to come. The house is in a great downtown Philly neighborhood. It’s apparised value has about double in the last few years. It’s a highly desirable and walkable neighborhood, U of Penn runs their own shuttle busses here to cater to students and staff.

The shared price of heat amongst 4 units is a lot less than the cost of owning a car. So I expect the neighborhood to become only more valuable as the belt tightens. It is becoming trendy to live in the historic houses because it is seen as a green way of living. It’s not about the reality, it’s the optics, the herd mentality.

Don’t think like an Engineer, you probably bought a Beta, I did. Gotta think like the herd.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 11496
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Mon 19 Nov 2018, 20:20:47

I think that the 15% penalty for energy efficiency is optimistic. It's more than that IMHO, more like 30-35% to go to the PassivHaus standard. The reason being it takes more than insulation. You need an insulated slab or basement, not thermally coupled to the ground, and definately not "earth sheltered" or partially buried underground. You need orientation to enable passive solar gain, especially in Northern climates. You need energy-efficient appliances, such as induction cooktops. You need extremely high performance windows and doors and walls and roof. You need a solar roof and/or wind turbine. You need backup electrical power and heat source(s).

Most of all, you need building code changes and standards for energy usage. You also need to understand that other than a few dozen residences in this nation, you need a new house, because what you have is not nearly good enough. I understand the pushback will be huge, but these things are a good idea now and will be mandatory soon enough.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5696
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Mon 19 Nov 2018, 20:30:07

Newfie wrote:
KaiserJeep wrote:So Newfie, the question is do you prefer to own that obsolete building until the rising cost of energy makes it worthless? It sounds from your description as if it will be an early casualty of the energy crisis to come.


Quite the contrary, I expect to BENEFIT from the energy crisis to come. The house is in a great downtown Philly neighborhood. It’s apparised value has about double in the last few years. It’s a highly desirable and walkable neighborhood, U of Penn runs their own shuttle busses here to cater to students and staff.

The shared price of heat amongst 4 units is a lot less than the cost of owning a car. So I expect the neighborhood to become only more valuable as the belt tightens. It is becoming trendy to live in the historic houses because it is seen as a green way of living. It’s not about the reality, it’s the optics, the herd mentality.

Don’t think like an Engineer, you probably bought a Beta, I did. Gotta think like the herd.


Newfie, think of it this way. When energy costs are 10X what they are today, the electricity/gas/oil utilities will also be 10x what the cost is today. How many in your housing market can afford your building then? How long can you own that building with no occupants?

While it is true that inner city residences save on transport costs, they do not save on HVAC.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5696
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby Newfie » Tue 20 Nov 2018, 09:22:05

And they will all be in the same bucket. So all those McMansions will cost tons more to heat and cool than a small center city apartment. So they will come to the city.

Look at the urbanization trends.

I’ve just got a chicken coop for the chickens.

Maybe, someday, what you say will happen. I’m betting that’s 20+ years away and I’ve got time to sell out first. Like Ibon and SLR.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 11496
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Tue 20 Nov 2018, 09:32:48

KaiserJeep wrote:
While it is true that inner city residences save on transport costs, they do not save on HVAC.

Not true. Heat loss or gain is a matter of the surface area of a building and the materials used. The high rise apartment building has much less surface area per tenant then a stand alone single family house.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9210
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby cephalotus » Tue 20 Nov 2018, 10:30:59

My collegues collected data from hundreds of passiv houses incl comercial buildings, schools and others.

Most don't live up to the promisses, because People don't use them as they should use them.

They are more energy efficient than normal buildings and I believe for certain buildings they are really good, like schools or houses for old people. The automatic venting system is quite handy there.

For your private home I would disagree and say the passive house is a bit over the edge, at least in our climate. To much insulation for little gain and to much technology.
It could be a solution for the technological affine and for those that prefer it very warm, lets say 23°C+ in all your house maybe incl. a warm swimming pool in the basement. But you need lots of gray energy to build that.

I prefer a more simple concept. Make a thick wall with hollow tile bricks with good but not outstanding insulation. This wall will last 100 years or 300 years. No additional insulation.
Use windows with tripple glazing, because today they cost more or less the same as double glazing.

Use a heat pump (deep soil as heat source) and maybe a themal storage system (hot water) and that's it.

Add as much PV as fits on the east, south and west roof.

On the end you propably need around 2000kWh electricity per year to heat your home to high temperatures. You can use the ground for cooling during summer (climate Change!).
Your PV system will be able to produce 8.000-15.000kWh/year even in cloudy Germany, depending on ist size.

Our electricity mix of today is 40% renewable, it will soon be at 60-70%. The price of electricity is already close to 30€ct/kWh. It could go up maybe to 40-50€ct/kWh, but I doubt it will ever go up t 1€/kWh or even 3€/kWh (factor 10)

So your house has zero emissions and its use of fossil energy only depends on the electricity mix. Having a thermal storage for some hours or days will aloow to use a significant higher share of wind power than waht is available in the grid and will help grid stability. Just switch of the heating system in times of peak demand.

The house does not need more energy to be built (vs. passive house which is energy intensive to build), it is quite low tec and doesn't depend on People knowing how to have to live in their home. You can heat your rooms to different temperatures including colder rooms for storage or sleeping whioch is difficult in passive houses.

It costs similar to standard houses and ist main components will last for a very long time.

It produces more the energy that the owners would need for heating, hot water, electricity, AC and electric vehicles. It is connected to the grid and will provide solar power to the grid and will use grid electricty to heat with a samrt demand system. The house will help the grid.

Energy prices will be low. Not only today, but also in 20 years or 50 years.

But this is for private homes that are built new. Those homes are very ressource intensive (used space and materials per person) so only desireable as an alternative to other private homes. There need also be solution for the other 90% of already built homes and for those who rent. This is the real problem.

If prices for natural gas would increase significantly those people would not like it, but it will not cause collapse. People just will turn down the thermostate. You can save 50-80% of your heating cost turning down the room temperature significantly (to avoid problems with moisture buy a hygrometer and learn how to air your rooms)

People will not like it but it is doable. It's plan B, IF energy prices will rise as high as you believe. I doubt they will do it on their own. Maybe a CO2 tax will help.
It is needed sooner or later if we decide that we don't wnat to live in a +4K or +5K world. (+2K is already next to impossible, +3K seems like the unrealistic best case)
cephalotus
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Tue 18 Sep 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Germany

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby Newfie » Tue 20 Nov 2018, 13:47:57

C,

What about peoples use of their homes negated the possible savings? What did they do wrong?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 11496
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Tue 20 Nov 2018, 14:25:09

Try again, Newfie. Not sure I understand your question. The alternatives already suggested:

1) Build new energy-efficient buildings.
2) Retrofit existing buildings for energy efficiency.
3) Turn down the thermostat in existing buildings.

#3 means 15C or 60F temperatures in one occupied room, and 10C or 50F in unoccupied rooms in your home. Along with an insulated afghan or even an electric heated throw for personal comfort. It also means that the newer "open concept" floorplans are no longer desireable, and that individual rooms need to be seperate heating zones.

Forced air heating systems are easily retrofitted to zone-per-room specs. The furnace fan is changed from fixed speed to variable speed, and WiFi-controlled individual servo air vents are used in each room. The heat need only be on in rooms in use, and fuel consumption is minimized. It may also be necessary to fit an air return grille in the room door, and to keep the doors closed. I saw such a system demo'd on the PBS program "This Old House".

#1 is the preferred solution for "open floor plan" lifestyles and maximum energy conservation.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5696
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Tue 20 Nov 2018, 15:08:21

KaiserJeep wrote:3) Turn down the thermostat in existing buildings.

#3 means 15C or 60F temperatures in one occupied room, and 10C or 50F in unoccupied rooms in your home. Along with an insulated afghan or even an electric heated throw for personal comfort. It also means that the newer "open concept" floorplans are no longer desireable, and that individual rooms need to be seperate heating zones.

All this makes great sense to me except (perhaps) saying the temp. for the occupied room must be 60 degrees F.

People are different, their health is different, they may have pets with different temp. needs for good health, etc.

So for the occupied room (or especially section of a room one is seated in via a small space heater), allowing for 65F or even 68F, but someone is doing the rest -- would still seem like a serious improvement over the usual, "heat the whole damn 3 zone McMansion to 72 or 74 F and don't worry about the energy burned" attitude that seems to come with cheap energy.

I used to use 60, and was happy to use a heavy hoodie before I had a cat. But I can tell my cat doesn't like it below about 67 or above 77 for long, so I've tried to help her out there.

It seems to me there's a long distance between being willing to do nothing, and being willing to try and do the right thing -- but allow for personal needs. I suppose the hard thing is deciding on where to draw the line on what's "reasonable".

I'm hoping we, as a society, can come up with "reasonable" guidelines that millions might be willing to follow, when energy gets expensive. (As long as it's cheap, only those willing to actively "do something" about the climate as a matter of principle will much care).
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 6085
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests